• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Obama's air strike plans in disarray after Britain rejects use of force in Syria

RJKarl said:
Bob, you complained about my using Mike rogers, yet you used a general who led us in the failed Iraq War strategy.

"“There’s a broad naivete in the political class about America’s obligations in foreign policy issues, and scary simplicity about the effects that employing American military power can achieve,” said retired Lt Gen. Gregory S. Newbold, who served as director of operations for the Joint Chiefs of Staff during the run-up to the Iraq war, noting that many of his contemporaries are alarmed by the plan ...

So now you are on the side of the people who created the Iraq War strategy?
Click to expand...

I'm not the expert on Gregory S. Newbold and the role he played in the Iraq War that you seem to be, but it would be understandable if he learned from the mistakes in Iraq and doesn't want to see them repeated. Obama is depending on other people in the military who were involved with Iraq. Also, Newbold's not the only person quoted in the article:
Marine Lt. Col. Gordon Miller, a fellow at the Center for a New American Security, warned this week of “potentially devastating consequences, including a fresh round of chemical weapons attacks and a military response by Israel.”
Click to expand...
Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, has warned in great detail about the risks and pitfalls of U.S. military intervention in Syria.
“As we weigh our options, we should be able to conclude with some confidence that use of force will move us toward the intended outcome,” Dempsey wrote last month in a letter to the Senate Armed Services Committee. “Once we take action, we should be prepared for what comes next. Deeper involvement is hard to avoid.”
Click to expand...
The recently retired head of the U.S. Central Command, Gen. James Mattis, said last month at a security conference that the United States has “no moral obligation to do the impossible” in Syria. “If Americans take ownership of this, this is going to be a full-throated, very, very serious war,” said Mattis, who as Centcom chief oversaw planning for a range of U.S. military responses in Syria.

The potential consequences of a U.S. strike include a retaliatory attack by the Lebanese militant group Hezbollah — which supports Assad — on Israel, as well as cyberattacks on U.S. targets and infrastructure, U.S. military officials said.
Click to expand...
“What is the political end state we’re trying to achieve?” said a retired senior officer involved in Middle East operational planning who said his concerns are widely shared by active-duty military leaders. “I don’t know what it is. We say it’s not regime change. If it’s punishment, there are other ways to punish.” The former senior officer said that those who are expressing alarm at the risks inherent in the plan “are not being heard other than in a pro-forma manner.”
Click to expand...
 
Kerry briefing now.

Ugh. If this is just going to be a bunch of histrionics, nevermind.
 
Last edited:
Kerry stated unequivocally they have intelligence form the Assad regime planning the attack and even telling its soldiers and representatives to wear gas masks.

He said there are direct reports tying the Assad regime to the attack before and after the devastation.

I doubt anything will be enough for Bobstack.
 
bobstack is more concerned about what the fucking point is with an attack than whether it was Assad or the rebels. because no one can explain our goals other than "punish them!" except the other great powers all have the same info and they balked.
 
The other question is what happens if we do nothing? It's a green light to all the loons.
 
ImTheCaptain said:
bobstack is more concerned about what the fucking point is with an attack than whether it was Assad or the rebels. because no one can explain our goals other than "punish them!" except the other great powers all have the same info and they balked.
Click to expand...

exactly. I want to know what we're trying to achieve. I don't care whodunnit, I want to know what is the US mission here and what we expect to achieve. I suspect that the administration either doesn't really have a goal in mind, or doesn't want to tie themselves to any particular goal knowing that they'll be crucified when the goals are, inevitably, not achieved.
 
Greenlight for what, that makes no logical sense. Do you think other countries don't know that if it directly involves the United States they will get blasted back to the stoneage. Launch chemical weapons etc... at a US asset or ally is a lot different than gassing your own people. Doing this serves no logical purpose accept for jumping to do it because of some false sense of moral superiority to the rest of the world. Plenty of regional players have the means to strike Syria if they feel the all mighty calling.
 
ThinkingWithMyDeac said:
Greenlight for what, that makes no logical sense. Do you think other countries don't know that if it directly involves the United States they will get blasted back to the stoneage. Launch chemical weapons etc... at a US asset or ally is a lot different than gassing your own people. Doing this serves no logical purpose accept for jumping to do it because of some false sense of moral superiority to the rest of the world. Plenty of regional players have the means to strike Syria if they feel the all mighty calling.
Click to expand...

Whoa, whoa, whoa! We don't want any regional players getting involved with this any more than they already are. If it's a choice between the US launching an air strike or the Turks, the Saudis, or Jordan, let the US do it.
 
Deacon923 said:
exactly. I want to know what we're trying to achieve. I don't care whodunnit, I want to know what is the US mission here and what we expect to achieve. I suspect that the administration either doesn't really have a goal in mind, or doesn't want to tie themselves to any particular goal knowing that they'll be crucified when the goals are, inevitably, not achieved.
Click to expand...

The President has no reasonably achievable goal. There is no measureable endstate to military action in Syria and the right answer is that we continue to monitor the situation, but do nothing at this time. That chemical weapons are being used in Syria, by Syrians, ON Syrians is tragic. The loss of life from this conflict is not insignificant, but the money and blood we spent in Iraq and Afghanistan should be making us really think about what we are hoping to buy with military action in Syria.

On a lighter note, posrep to "rj drone strikes reason" tag/tagger. Well done.
 
RJKarl said:
Kerry stated unequivocally they have intelligence form the Assad regime planning the attack and even telling its soldiers and representatives to wear gas masks.

He said there are direct reports tying the Assad regime to the attack before and after the devastation.
Click to expand...


and where did they get this intelligence? From Israel, that's who. Seriously, you can't make this stuff up.
 
ImTheCaptain said:
bobstack is more concerned about what the fucking point is with an attack than whether it was Assad or the rebels. because no one can explain our goals other than "punish them!" except the other great powers all have the same info and they balked.
Click to expand...

THIS THIS THIS! What is the point. We have rebels! Can't be destroyed by a cruise missile (and aren't the target to begin with). We have a government : Not the target. Obama has said 'its not our mission to overthrow, but more to get them to the bargaining table'. HUH? DID YOU REALLY JUST SAY THAT ? What in the world is he talking about that will be changed by blowing shit up? Innocent people will die...that's the only FACT I know. This is getting fucking ridiculous.
 
how do you figure? Assad obviously entered the probability of Western and US 'punishment' and went ahead with it anyway, so that proves military strikes are not a deterrent. I mean it's not like the world wasn't watching when we demolished Iraq's military and nullified Libyan forces.
 
No he didn't. He threw a few chemical bombs last year and nothing was done. The west has done nothing ion Syria. He thought he was home free and was protected by Russia.

This is not all like either Iraq or Libya.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top